Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26553207›Full record

ReviewThe American journal of gastroenterology2015

Interval Colorectal Cancer After Colonoscopy: Exploring Explanations and Solutions.

Jeffrey Adler, Douglas J Robertson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04196088 (AIDA), which is not on this map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04196088 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

AIDA: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Detection of Adenomas (AIDA) With Standard High Definition With Light in Screening Colonoscopy

TypeinterventionalSponsorDocbot, Inc.Ran2020 to 2021Enrolled978ConditionsColorectal Adenoma, Colorectal Polyp, Colorectal Adenocarcinoma, Colorectal SSAArmsUltivision Artificial Intelligence Software, No Artificial Intelligence Software enhancement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Endoscopic mucosal resection-precuttingWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey AdlerDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Douglas J RobertsonVA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA.
Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center · USWhite River Junction VA Medical Center · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is good evidence that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been successful at reducing both CRC incidence and death. Colonoscopy, utilized as either a primary screening tool or a follow-up exam when other screening tests are positive, has significantly contributed to these encouraging trends. However, it is well recognized that colonoscopy is not perfectly sensitive for the detection of neoplasia and that CRC can be diagnosed within a short interval following a colonoscopy that did not detect one. The literature surrounding these cases has rapidly expanded over the last decade. Specifically, studies aimed at understanding the frequency of these events and the likely explanations for their occurrence have been performed. This review will highlight current knowledge around the epidemiology of interval post colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The common explanations for these cancers including missed lesions, new lesions, and incompletely resected lesions will be reviewed and their contribution to interval PCCRC estimated. Finally, the relationship of these putative explanations to potential opportunities to prevent interval PCCRC will be explored. Current approaches to prevention largely center on consistent adherence to quality colonoscopy standards. Future approaches include advances in technology to better visualize the colon and adequately resect detected neoplasia. Finally, improvement in training as well as development of a culture of continuous quality improvement will be essential to maximize the benefits of colonoscopy in daily clinical practice.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningColonColorectal NeoplasmsHumansIncidencePopulation SurveillanceQuality ImprovementSensitivity and SpecificityTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26553207
OpenAlexW2159114510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.